When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Click to expand...

The refs made a lot of bad calls in this game, but at the end they made the correct one.

Click to expand...

I'll stop arguing this point with you after this post because I see we're talking past each other here.

No one is arguing what the NFL Rules book says, just that the play did not occur in the way that the refs ruled that it did. The NFL statement doesn't change that; it just states what the refs ruled was correct based on on they thought they saw. Since we're arguing about what think they saw, that statement doesn't add anything to the "debate".

I've posted a photo where Jennings has the ball in the air before Tate, and I've posted one right after they hit the ground where Jennings still has the ball and Tate obviously still doesn't.

Since you seem to see to think this play very clearly progressed in a way different from what everyone else here saw after numerous replays, from what every talking head saw last night, can you show us a picture in sequence that shows what you're saying?

...there is no such thing as degrees of possession. Either one does, both do, or neither does. And as far as any person can tell, "both do" is the only conclusion you can come to with any degree of certainty.

...

Whether Jennings had more possession in the air or not is irrelevant. There is no such thing as possession in the air. Possession inherently implies two feet, a butt, a shoulder, and elbow, a knee, a hip, some body part touching the ground. At the point when it most mattered, when both players hit the ground, both players had an all but equal claim to the ball. Any rolling or twisting or manhandling afterwards is pointless. Once both players hit the ground in a state of dual possession, the play is dead and it's a touchdown.

...

There are very reasonable arguments to be made that it was an interception. When you break it down and go frame by frame, it looks like Jennings probably has more of a claim to it on the ground. Unfortunately, the official whose call it was to make didn't have the luxury of breaking it down frame by frame. He had to make the bang-bang call as he was watching six players go up and come down, all clawing at the ball. It looked to him like it was dual possession as they came down...

Click to expand...

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

There is NO WAY this is a simultaneous catch. There is no way that the Seattle receiver ever has ANY control of the ball, much less equal control. The defender has the ball pinned to his chest at the end of the play and the Seattle receiver has one hand on the ball (that we can see).

Seattle fans, ask yourself this; if the Seattle receiver had been in Jenning's place and the Pack defender in Tate's place, would you still call this a simultaneous catch?

...there is no such thing as degrees of possession. Either one does, both do, or neither does. And as far as any person can tell, "both do" is the only conclusion you can come to with any degree of certainty.

...

Whether Jennings had more possession in the air or not is irrelevant. There is no such thing as possession in the air. Possession inherently implies two feet, a butt, a shoulder, and elbow, a knee, a hip, some body part touching the ground. At the point when it most mattered, when both players hit the ground, both players had an all but equal claim to the ball. Any rolling or twisting or manhandling afterwards is pointless. Once both players hit the ground in a state of dual possession, the play is dead and it's a touchdown.

...

There are very reasonable arguments to be made that it was an interception. When you break it down and go frame by frame, it looks like Jennings probably has more of a claim to it on the ground. Unfortunately, the official whose call it was to make didn't have the luxury of breaking it down frame by frame. He had to make the bang-bang call as he was watching six players go up and come down, all clawing at the ball. It looked to him like it was dual possession as they came down...

Click to expand...

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

Click to expand...

By the reasoning in the post above and by yours, all a receiver need do is have his two hands touching a football which is in "possession" of a player who has intercepted the pass and has both feet on the ground -- by "possession", I mean two hands on the ball and the ball pinned to the body -- in order to claim a "simultaneous catch" and retain possession of the ball.

If I were a receiver coach, I would tell all my guys, "look if you see the defender has intercepted the ball, just go touch the football with both hands if you can and you should get the benefit of the doubt".

I kept reading here last night that this call couldn't be reviewed, and people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was reviewed. Well, I thought all scoring plays this season were reviewable, so it seemed legit to me.

Click to expand...

A ruling on the field must be made prior to a review (ie, you can't review the tape just to make your ruling, you must have an initial call). The officials chose to rule a catch and touchdown on the field, which under the immediate circumstances was probably the right call. Therefore, during the replay review, they must decide if it was indeed a catch. They ultimately decide that it was a simultaneous catch, and thus confirm the ruling on the field of touchdown.

So their application of the rules was entirely correct: when there is simultaneous possession, it goes to the receiver. What the Referee Official thinks he saw was a simultaneous catch. What's at issue is that the catch does not appear to actually be a simultaneous possession, and should have been overturned.

Also, the replay booth guys are not replacements and they seem to be getting a free pass. Why aren't they being grilled today for what happened. Why Aren't they having a press conference a la Jim Joyce and apologizing publicly for this?

Click to expand...

The misconception here is that replay booth officials have decision-making power on reviews. The sole job of the replay official is to alert the Referee on the field that a review must be conducted. They take a look at every single play inside of two minutes and every play that results in a score, and if there is something that is fishy, they call down to the field and request a replay. The booth officials themselves are not making a ruling, nor can they overturn rulings on the field.

When an instant replay review is taking place, the sole responsibility for the ultimate ruling rests on the Referee Official (Mr White Hat), and no one else.

I've been thinking about this (after sleeping on it basically) and I have a few things to ask.

-I kept reading here last night that this call couldn't be reviewed, and people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was reviewed. Well, I thought all scoring plays this season were reviewable, so it seemed legit to me.

Click to expand...

It's a goofy thing with the rules... in the field of play, when there's a simultaneous catch situation, who actually has possession can't be reviewed or overturned. They can decide if there was actually a catch, but they can't reward the ball to one team or the other after making an initial decision. BUT, possession can be reviewed in the endzone. So, there's no reason why they couldn't have overturned it or gave the ball to the defense or anything of that sort.

Also, since when was it an official rule that you had to kick the extra point for the touchdown to count. I always thought if you score a touchdown and it's the end of the game, than you don't need to kick the PAT. Before the PAT, it was 13-12, so that's game over right? In OT, if you score a TD, the game is over and you don't have to kick. I was very confused with both those aspects.

Click to expand...

In overtime, you don't have to kick the PAT because it's first to score. In regular time, the PAT still has to happen, even if it's in the closing seconds.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Click to expand...

The refs made a lot of bad calls in this game, but at the end they made the correct one.

Click to expand...

When was the last time the NFL came out and said, "Yeah, our guys fucked up."? In fact, the way I read their statement was trying to shift focus elsewhere. By saying that the catch was good, but there should have been PI, it was like saying, "The thing you guys are worried about was correct, but they missed this call instead. Fortunately, they've been missing all sorts of calls, so it's not really a big deal, so shut up and keep paying!"

The NFL will never throw their guys under the bus. Don't expect them to start now, especially when "so much" (a whopping $100,000 per owner) is on the line.

...there is no such thing as degrees of possession. Either one does, both do, or neither does. And as far as any person can tell, "both do" is the only conclusion you can come to with any degree of certainty.

...

Whether Jennings had more possession in the air or not is irrelevant. There is no such thing as possession in the air. Possession inherently implies two feet, a butt, a shoulder, and elbow, a knee, a hip, some body part touching the ground. At the point when it most mattered, when both players hit the ground, both players had an all but equal claim to the ball. Any rolling or twisting or manhandling afterwards is pointless. Once both players hit the ground in a state of dual possession, the play is dead and it's a touchdown.

...

There are very reasonable arguments to be made that it was an interception. When you break it down and go frame by frame, it looks like Jennings probably has more of a claim to it on the ground. Unfortunately, the official whose call it was to make didn't have the luxury of breaking it down frame by frame. He had to make the bang-bang call as he was watching six players go up and come down, all clawing at the ball. It looked to him like it was dual possession as they came down...

Click to expand...

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

Click to expand...

For possession to happen, a player not only has to come down with two feet in bounds, he has to perform a "football move". In this case, falling down constituted a football move. How many times did one or both of Tate's hands stop holding onto the football when they came down? The defender had possession from start to finish, Tate would occassionally have it. The only reason the ball didn't squirt away when they hit the ground was because Jennings never lost his possession.

John Clayton is on the local ESPN station now, and he says it was definitely an interception. He says that Tate had the ball, but that Jennings had possession when he landed on Tate and therefore had control. His main criticism is the way the referees did not confer with each other and made contradictory calls.

I still think the right call was made, but I know I'm in the minority. On the other hand, bad calls happen. The Immaculate Reception was an illegal catch according to the rules of the day, but nobody cares about that anymore. Furthermore, the Packers could have ended the game by getting a first down on their last offensive series, or by knocking the Hail Mary to the ground instead of trying for the INT. The controversial call was notable for being the last play of the game, but it was not like the Packers played a perfect game that was stolen by dastardly officials.

EDIT: Clayton just called the play "The Inaccurate Reception." I wonder if it will catch on.

I honestly don't understand all the attention this is getting and am getting seriously tired of all the indignation. It wasn't any more egregious than the more notorious botched coin flips, push-offs, phantom PI calls, and miss-called non catches of the last 50 years of NFL football.

The hyperbole and outrage of it being the "worst call in history" is just plain stupid. There have been many that were worse--several of which were in late season games or in the playoffs. This was a week three game.

The only reason this has garnered as much attention as it did is because people are trying to turn the replacement refs into scape goats. The poor guys were put into a shitty situation and are just doing their jobs.

People have even called them scabs. The thing is, had they not come to the rescue, the NFL would have been facing its second lockout situation in as many years. This would have killed the sport.

Could they be doing a better job? Absolutely. But the media and players are just as responsible for the circus as they are. There have been plenty of right calls over the last few weeks that have been marked wrong by the announcers or by players complaining about them in the post game. This has made these guys intimidated and unsure of themselves, and the whole thing has spun out of control. How many of the calls on Sunday were the direct result of coach and or player solicitation? There's plenty of people to blame for creating this current atmosphere.

And ESPN devoting more time to breaking down the film than the Warren Commission did the Grassy Knoll tape isn't helping matters.

Honestly, I'm partly convinced the only reason they obsessed over it so much is because they can't face the fact their darling Packers aren't nearly as good as they thought they were. The only "butthurt" the Packers received was thanks to the Seahawk's defense. Had they really played as well as they're supposedly able to, that play would have never happened.

So if you want to blame someone, blame Discount Double Check for playing like shit. Don't blame the replacement refs.

Have the players' union announce that until the real refs return, the players will pick several games each weekend at random, and refuse to start playing the game until about 15 or 30 minutes after the scheduled start time. Just long enough to wreak havoc with the TV schedules.

If the networks try to adjust coverage accordingly, then randomize. Change the length of the delays. Do it after half-time instead of before the game. My guess is that after a week or two of this, the TV networks will put so much pressure on the league that the lockout will be over.